Re: [Debconf-team] Teviot Update
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:59:55AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Kevin Campbell dijo [Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:58:21PM +0100]:
> > This is a contractual dispute with teviot, and as such I'm not going to
> > discuss it further on the list. Supplier problems are always a risk. I
> > should note that the local orga team did take suitable steps to avoid
> > this from day one. The alternative arrangement we are currently providing
> > fits all of the documented requirements, and should not prove to be an
> > issue.
> >
> > If there are additional requirements which this may cause issues with,
> > please contact me and suitable arrangements will be made to support
> > these.
>
> Well, I really did not expect such a policy change having a signed
> agreement, in a place of the world where I expect contracts to be
> strictly honored :(
>
> Anyway... They are changing the rules they promised to abide by. If
> there is nothing they can do to give us 24h access to Teviot (which
> _has_ been shown to be a requirement - i.e. last year we ended up
> paying ~US$1000 extra to keep the hacklabs open 24h because there was
> _demand_ for it at least until 3AM during Debcamp, probably more
> during Debconf), we should at least demand them to give us (and no,
> it's not a "you have permission to run a cable between the roofs" - We
> need something that won't fail due to a truck ripping out the cable or
> trees/rain interference in the wireless) acceptable network access in
> the second venue. And, of course, the video team must say whether they
> are OK with having their whole setup in an adjacent building, which
> will make it harder to jump check on something.
Teviot have no connection (as in no legal connection) to the second
venue. It is entirely unrelated. There is LOS to the second venue from
teviot, and it was noted tonight that a wireless link will work. We will
need a directional antenna to do this and retain an adequate signal for
a high speed connection, but I expect we should be able to get a good link.
Alternatively, if anyone has access to more powerful LOS networking
equipment, this would help somewhat.
K
Reply to: